As we become more focused on understanding health and weight related issues, the media's role in providing information on these subjects has increased to a large degree. Nearly every health or fitness driven magazine and website publishes regular columns devoted to a variety of topics, ranging from diet, to medication, exercise and nutrition. The speed at which these vehicles produce information, along with a journalist's commitment, or lack thereof, to fact finding, research and objectivity, often create situations where the truth is stretched or simply ignored entirely. A recent article on a widely read site, www.health.com, provided a striking example of just how loose the editorial standards can be. The article, written by Julie Upton, a registered dietitian and prolific health writer, was titled six diet trends you should never try. From my own experience with the often misleading information found on these sites, I rarely follow them. However, due to Ms. Upton's inclusion of the raw food diet in the list of those to avoid, I felt compelled read her column. It was an interesting read, if only for a further education as to how far a journalist can manipulate or misstate facts for the purposes of completing an article and likely a deadline.

Ms. Upton's resume is extensive and she certainly possesses the skills and resources to properly research her stories and to deliver a balanced, factual and objective viewpoint. It would be hard to question that alone but based on this particular article, the commitment to do so may be lacking, and editorial oversight certainly is. Interesting, the most notable quote on Ms. Upton's website is as follows:

"My favorite part of being a writer is coming up with a story idea that no one else thought of or unearthing some lesser-known research that's never been reported on. The challenge in nutrition writing is to take credible, scientific information that's not new, but making it newsworthy."

Being one who supports creativity in all its forms, I can hardly argue with that lofty goal however, when it results in manipulation of facts to support a story that is ill conceived to begin with, I have a hard time agreeing with that approach.

In all fairness, and in the spirit of "journalistic integrity", I did attempt to contact both Ms. Upton and her publisher, in the hopes that one or both would respond to a few questions and offer rebuttals to my assessment of the article. Neither party responded, so I have let the facts of the article speak for itself.

Raw Food Diet

Eating raw is based on trying to get the majority of your calories from unprocessed and uncooked foods. Rawists believe that eating foods above 116° - 118° F will destroy enzymes that provide many health benefits. While most dietitians would agree that eating lots of minimally processed fruits, vegetables, and grains is best, we also understand that processing actually boosts the bioavailability of several key nutrients, primarily the phytonutrients, and inactivates some of the unhealthy compounds.

The raw food diet is rich in all plant-based foods including fruits and vegetables; nuts and seeds; and sprouted seeds, grains, and beans. Don't get me wrong; these ingredients are great and you can make plenty of meals (here are five delicious ones) using these guidelines. But following this type of diet to a T requires a lot of complicated food preparation creating pine nut and yeast "cheese," for example that makes it impractical for most working women.

I have had plenty of experience with raw foods because I live in Marin County, Calif., where Roxanne Klein, the coauthor of Raw, started Roxanne's Fine Cuisine, a line of pricey prepared raw food creations available at our Whole Foods and other high-end supermarkets. I've tried several of the items but have found them to be extremely expensive and not very tasty certainly nothing I could follow for more than a day or two at most.

As a "flexitarian" and part-time vegan, I know that eating lower on the food chain can help promote weight loss, but I also know that caloric content is not related to the heated treatment of food. Skip the raw food diet, and eat more healthful whole foods cooked or raw to help whittle your waist, not your wallet.

The article prompted a rally from a number of raw food fans, including me. There is no question that most of her points could be valid under certain circumstances, but in general, they are far from factual.

Raw food, like any food, can be complicated to prepare. It can also be extraordinarily simple in fact, the easiest of any foods. Ms. Upton seems to confuse restaurant and cookbook quality, gourmet raw food, with what the general population would prepare at home on a daily basis. It was a point that was very poorly made the same could be said of any style of food, save packaged and processed foods, which, incidentally, she has also endorsed in various articles she has written in the past.

Most troubling, from a point of integrity, is what she has chosen to base as her "experience" with raw food. Said experience was based on the fact that she lives in an area where one brand of raw food is sold in its packaged form at high end supermarkets. If she was truly familiar, she would realize that packaged foods are the least prominent aspect of what makes raw food truly remarkable. In my letter, I pointed out that basing her opinion of raw food on a packaged product would be like judging a master chef based on a line of canned soups borrowing his or her name, and sold at a local deli. The statement is equal to suggesting that French Cuisine is not fresh, based on the purchase of a frozen meal.

Ms. Upton, a self described part-time vegan (whatever that may be), seems to have her priorities in line with her quoted mission whether those priorities are of benefit to her readers or not is another story.